\section{Performance evaluation of different implementation variants}
To verify the general performance of the \ac{DSP} implemented \ac{ANR} algorithm, the complex usecase of the high-level implemenation is used, which includes a 16-tap \ac{FIR} filter and an update of the filter coefficients every cycle. In contary to the high-level implementation, the coeffcient convergence is now not included in the evaluation anymore, but the metric for the \ac{ANR} performance stays the same as the \ac{SNR} improvement.
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Bilder/fig_plot_1_dsp_complex.png}
    \caption{Desired signal, corrupted signal, reference noise signal and filter output of the complex \ac{ANR} use case, simulated on the \ac{DSP}}
    \label{fig:fig_plot_1_dsp_complex.png}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Bilder/fig_plot_2_dsp_complex.png}
    \caption{Error signal and filter coefficient evolution of the complex \ac{ANR} use case, simulated on the \ac{DSP}}
    \label{fig:fig_plot_2_dsp_complex.png}
\end{figure}  
Figure \ref{fig:fig_plot_1_dsp_complex.png} and \ref{fig:fig_plot_2_dsp_complex.png} show the results of the complex \ac{ANR} use case, simulated on the \ac{DSP}. The \ac{SNR} improvement of 5.92 dB is nearly the same as the one of the high-level implementation, which is 6.15 dB. The small difference can be explained by the fact that the \ac{DSP} implementation is based on fixed-point arithmetic, which leads to a slightly different convergence behavior. Nevertheless, the results show that the \ac{DSP} implementation of the \ac{ANR} algorithm is able to achieve a similar performance as the high-level implementation. The next step is of evaluate the performance of the \ac{DSP} implementation in terms of computational efficiency under different scenarios.